James Corbet Burcher is a leading Planning junior.
James specialises in promoting residential and commercial development, especially at s78 appeals and Local Plan examinations.
He is well-known for his strong team leadership and practical approach, and a forensic style grounded in direct experience of the relevant case law. He has appeared in over 50 High Court and appellate cases, including many of those concerning the interpretation of the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development and housing land supply provisions.
James is frequently instructed in areas that involve new / emerging national policy or legislation. In addition to NPPF litigation, he has successfully pioneered many of the early approaches to new areas such as neighbourhood plans and the self-build housing. He has significant advisory experience in respect of legislative changes under the current Government, including the new Local Plan system.
James has a long-standing interest in planning data and the application of artificial intelligence to decision-making/plan-making and has been a member of the Bar Council’s IT Panel for over 7 years.
The Directories have described him as “incredibly intelligent and hard-working”, “fantastic on the law” and “wonderful to work with”.
Section 78 planning appeal work forms the core of James’ practice.
He appears regularly at inquiry and hearing, primarily for housebuilders and development promoters. He also provides extensive advice on written representations appeals, especially in the context of the 2026 reforms.
James has developed a particular expertise in Grey Belt cases, having authored the first legal textbook in this area in September 2025: A Practical Guide to Securing Planning Permission on Grey Belt Sites in the Green Belt.
James has a modern, supportive style as advocate and team leader, working with witnesses across all disciplines and levels of experience. He has extensive experience of the reforms to appeal procedure in recent years, flowing from the original Rosewell Review.
He is familiar with all commonly arising technical topic areas and over the years has successfully secured permission on sites involving areas of legal / practical complexity: including flood risk, heritage, neighbourhood plans and Green Belt very special circumstances under the past Government.
Appeal Cases
Residential Development
Examples of appeal work in recent years include:
3371526: Warton, North Warwickshire BC (Representing Richborough Estates): Permission granted for 110 homes.
3350855 – Hest Bank, Lancaster (Applethwaite): Permission granted for 27 specialist older person homes.
3361297 – Matlock, Derbyshire Dales DC (Stancliffe): Permission granted for 37 homes.
3342994 – Midsomer Norton, BANES (Curo): Permission granted for 54 homes.
3336023 – Weybridge, Elmbridge BC (Acting for the LPA): Permission refused for 215 homes.
3334391 – Claygate, Elmbridge BC (LPA): Permission refused for 60 dwellings.
3324112 – Farnham, Waverley BC (Cove Homes): Permission granted for 56 dwellings.
326502 – Denby, Amber Valley BC (Garner Holdings): Permission granted for three signficant B1 / B2 / B8.
units (60,000 sql) in the Green Belt.
3230827 – Wrea Green, Fylde BC (Applethwaite): Permission granted for 45 age-restricted homes.
3223162 – Brimington, Chesterfield BC: Permission granted for 150 homes.
3203638 – Hartley Wintney, Hart DC (Forest Care): Permission granted for 60-bed care home.
3177851 – Hanslope, Milton Keynes (Davidson’s Homes): Permission granted for 141 homes
Secretary of State Recovered Appeals
Additional led work on Secretary of State recovered appeals has included:
330923 – Marshcroft, Tring (Harrow Estates, as junior to Chris Young KC): Secretary of State recovered
appeal: 1400 homes and major associated development in the Green Belt – subject to a further appeal in 2026
3230827 – Wheatley Campus, South Oxfordshire DC (Oxford Brookes University, as junior to Chris Young KC): Secretary of State recovered appeal: Permission granted for 500 homes in the Green Belt
Self-Build Housing
James has a particular niche specialism in self-build housing including the following 2025 and 2026 successes:
3374486 – Shenington, Cherwell BC (Terra Strategic): Permission granted for 9 self-build units
3353612 – Piddington, West Nothamptonshire (Landstrom): Permission granted for 11 self-build serviced plots
3353109 – Chadwick End, Solihull: Permission granted for 5 self-build homes
Local Plans
James has appeared at many Local Plan Examinations, usually for the promoters of large strategic-scale allocations, including:
Wokingham Local Plan (Representing the University of Reading): Promoting Loddon Valley Garden Village, comprising 3930 homes
Places for Everyone (Greater Manchester Combined Authority): Representing Peel Investments (North) Ltd, successfully promoting 8 major allocations (400 to 3000 units in scale) released from the Green Belt
South Gloucestershire Local Plan (Rubix Land): Promoting major development north of Yate
Harrogate District Local Plan (Oakgate): Prompting draft policy with broad location for growth of c. 3000 homes
Mole Valley Local Plan (Thakeham Homes): Promoting draft allocation for 200 homes
Warrington Local Plan (Cheshire Police): Section 106 contributions
St Helens Local Plan (Lovell Partnership): Promoting safeguarded land allocation
West of England Joint Spatial Plan (Churchill Residents Action Group): Resisting a strategic development location for 2800 homes
Section 113 High Court Challenges to Local Plans
James has also been instructed in many of the major s113 challenges of recent years, including the following:
Save Manchester Green Belt Group v GMCA [2025] EWHC 2742 (Admin): Acting for the successful Interested Party, Peel Group, in the defence against the challenge to the plan on the basis of Green Belt addition, housing numbers, and consultation
Flaxby Park v Harrogate BC [2020] EWHC 3204 (Admin): Acting for the successful Interested Party Oakgate (as junior to Chris Young KC) in the defence of the challenge to the draft broad location for growth. The claim concerned strategic environmental assessment, viability and local authority procedural matters
Compton PC v Guildford BC [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin): Acting for the successful Interested Party, Catesby (as junior to Chris Young KC) defending against the challenge to the Guildford Borough Local Plan. The claim raised a number of issues in respect of Green Belt policy, Housing Numbers, Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment, Habitats and examination procedure
IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield DC [2015] EWHC 2077 (Admin); IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield DC [2015] EWHC 1982 (Admin): Acting for the Interested Party, Persimmon in successive defences of the Lichfield Local Plan, raising issues in relation to Strategic Environmental Assessment and Green Belt policy
Zurich Assurance Ltd v Winchester City Council [2014] EWHC 758 (Admin): Acting for the claimant in one of the first cases to explore the duty to cooperate
Neighbourhood Plan-Making
James has acted in respect of over 70 neighbourhood plans since 2014, including at 10 hearings, including: Winsford (Cheshire West), Backwell (North Somerset), Winslow (Buckinghamshire), Great Horwood (Buckinghamshire), Great Somerford (Wiltshire), Earls Barton (South Northamptonshire), Cheddar (Somerset), Petersfield (South Downs NPA), and Farnham (Waverley).
The majority of his work in this field is for housebuilders and land promoters. He assists them and their consultants with detailed written representations covering the “basic conditions”, site assessment, strategic environmental assessment and procedure, as well as related public law and local government issues.
He has advised local planning authorities on procedure on several occasions.
He also acted for Central Milton Keynes Town Council in a major recovered appeal concerning the CMK Neighbourhood Plan and the redevelopment of an area adjacent to the listing Shopping Centre building and Midsummer Boulevard.
James has appeared in over 50 cases before the High Court including in the following key areas:
The Interpretation of National Planning Policy
Wavendon Properties v SSCLG [2019] EWHC 1524 (Admin): The scope of “most important policies” under NPPF 11d
Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes [2017] UKSC 37: The meaning of “policies for the supply of housing: under NPPF (2012) 49
Peel Investments (North) Ltd v SSCLG [2020] EWCA Civ 1175: The term “out of date” with particular regard to plan end dates
St Modwen v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 1643: The term “deliverable” in the context of housing land supply
East Staffordshire BC v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 89: The presumption in favour of sustainable development
Cheshire East BC v SSCLG and Renew Land Developments [2016] EWHC 571 (Admin): The presumption in favour of sustainable development
Kings Lynn and West Norfolk BC v SSCLG and Elm Park Holdings [2015] EWHC 2464 (Admin): The calculation of housing requirements
Section 288 Challenges
Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) v Worthing BC [2023] EWCA Civ 762: Development plan policy intrerpretation and development within the setting of a National Park
Verdin (t/a The Darnhall Estate) v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 2079 (Admin): Section 106 contributions and materiality
Baroness Cumberlege of Newick v SSCLG and DLA Delivery [2017] EWHC 2057 (Admin): The duty to have regard to parallel decisions
Judicial Reviews
Richborough Estates v SSCLG [2018] EWHC 33 (Admin): Challenge by 25 development industry claimants to the Written Ministerial Statement on Neighbourhood Planning
R(Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd [2019] UKSC 53: Materiality of financial contributions
Neighbourhood Plan-making
DLA Delivery Ltd v Lewes DC [2017] EWCA Civ 58: The basic conditions and SEA
Plan procedure
Section 113 Challenge to Local Plans
Save Manchester Green Belt Group v GMCA [2025] EWHC 2742 (Admin)
Flaxby Park v Harrogate BC [2020] EWHC 3204 (Admin)
Airebourough Neighbourhood Forum v Leeds CC [2020] EWHC 2183 (Admin)
Compton PC v Guildford BC [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin)
IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield DC [2015] EWHC 2077 (Admin) and IM Properties Development
Ltd v Lichfield DC [2015] EWHC 1982 (Admin)
Zurich Assurance Ltd v Winchester City Council [2014] EWHC 758 (Admin)
R(Kebbell Developments Ltd) v Leeds City Council [2016] EWHC 2664 (Admin): Neighbourhood
“Vision Led” – what is it and what does it mean?The new “Severe Test” – for traffic impact, Where on earth is Manual for Streets…
As we finalise the programme for our Annual Seminar, we are delighted to announce two guest speakers: Joanna Averley, the Government’s Chief Planner and Head…
"[He] is clear, precise, relaxed and encouraging. He is very forensic and detailed"
"He’s fantastic on the law with an extraordinary level of enthusiasm." "Very diligent and client-focused."
"Incredibly intelligent and hard-working, and an impressive advocate." "A sincere and very committed member of the Bar."
"A very good junior with an excellent grasp of what’s important. He’s wonderful to work with." "Highly intelligent."
"He has extensive knowledge of the legal system…Extraordinarily detailed and very thorough"
"An up-and-coming junior frequently highlighted for his client-friendly approach who is developing a strong reputation in the market…He has a good style and intellectual approach…He is very capable and very keen."
“Vision Led” – what is it and what does it mean?The new “Severe Test” – for traffic impact, Where on earth is Manual for Streets…
As we finalise the programme for our Annual Seminar, we are delighted to announce two guest speakers: Joanna Averley, the Government’s Chief Planner and Head…
